Thursday, October 13, 2011

Okay, so I don't usually do this, but this is an issue near and dear to me and this is getting very little no attention in the mainstream media.

Mississippi is voting on November 8th on whether to pass Amendment 26, the "Personhood Amendment". This amendment would grant fertilized eggs and fetuses personhood status.
Putting aside the contentious issue of abortion, this would effectively outlaw birth control and criminalize women who have miscarriages. This is not a good thing.

Jackson Women's Health Organization is the only place women can get abortions in the entire state, and they are trying to launch a grassroots movement against this amendment. This doesn't just apply to Mississippi, though, as Personhood USA, the group that introduced this amendment, is trying to introduce identical amendments in all 50 states.

What's more, in Mississippi, this amendment is expected to pass. It even has Mississippi Democrats, including the Attorney General, Jim Hood, backing it.

The reason I'm posting this here is because I made a meager donation to the Jackson Women's Health Organization this morning, and I received a personal email back hours later - on a Sunday - thanking me and noting that I'm one of the first "outside" people to contribute.

So if you sometimes pass on political action because you figure that enough other people will do something to make a difference, make an exception on this one. My RSS reader is near silent on this amendment. I only found out about it through a feminist blog. The mainstream media is not reporting on it.

If there is ever a time to donate or send a letter in protest, this would be it.
What to do?
- Read up on it. Wake Up, Mississippi is the home of the grassroots effort to fight this amendment. Daily Kos also has a thorough story on it.
- If you can afford it, you can donate at the site's link.
- You can contact the Democratic National Committee to see why more of our representatives aren't speaking out against this.
- Like this Facebook page to help spread awareness.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Everything about that just pisses me off. This paragraph right here sums up exactly how I feel about this:

“Employers [use] credit reports to help them gauge whether prospective employees can handle money and show up to work on time, but there is no evidence that credit history correlates to job performance,” says Traub. “What it does reveal is the kind of stress a household is under in this recession. It’s a Catch-22: You’re having trouble paying bills and you’re using a credit card for basic household expenses because you’re unemployed. But you won’t get hired because you’re having trouble paying bills.”

Because you know what? My credit report is complete shit and it's going to show that I haven't been paying on my student loans and that I've had late payments on things. What the report won't show is that even when I was working two jobs, I barely made enough to cover my bills such as rent, car insurance, groceries, and other basic necessities. I'm hoping that once I finish training at my current job that I'll be able to get over-time and start fixing things ASAP, because I want to improve my situation. I haven't neglected paying back my loans because I'm a bad person and just don't want to do it; it's because I haven't been able to afford to. Years of making minimum wage (and not being hired for jobs that paid more than that) haven't put me in a position to have the funds to do it.

Like that article said, it's a Catch-22. You can't pay those bills without a job (or hell, even having a job but not making enough to pay them) but if no one will hire you, guess what? You still can't pay. I really don't understand how people can feel justified in not hiring someone based on their credit report. "This person is in huge debt. I will NOT hire them! Serves you right for being in debt!" No. No, that is bullshit. Want to know how people can get out of debt and improve their scores? GETTING JOBS! Maybe getting TWO jobs if it's possible for one's situation. But to choose not to hire an applicant and using that person's credit score to justify that? Then that employer is part of the problem.

When I was looking for work I was terrified that I wouldn't get hired for this reason. I know my credit report is a huge mess, and I was so scared that no one would want to hire me be cause of it. I have been through that, and am still afraid it will ruin future job searches. Whether or not I've made payments toward any of my loans is no one's business but my own and those agencies. A potential job should have <i>no reason</i> to look into that. That is someone's personal life and that is NOT AN EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

"COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio House of Representatives approved a bill on Tuesday that would impose the strictest limit on abortions in the U.S.

House members approved the bill with a 54-43 vote, 10TV's Tanisha Mallett reported.

The bill would ban abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat, and that occurs sometimes as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

The Republican-led chamber scheduled votes Tuesday on two other bills. One prohibits abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy if a physician determines the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb. Another prevents certain health insurers from covering abortions.

Heartbeats can sometimes be detected as early as six weeks into pregnancy, ahead of the point where the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for states to limit abortions.

Pro-abortion rights groups and lawmakers planned to protest the votes.

Watch 10TV News and refresh 10TV.com for continuing coverage."

If a woman didn't even find out she was pregnant until around week six or later, it may already be too late for her to have an abortion according to this bill, thus nearly banning abortion in the state altogether. Fortunately it still has to pass the Senate so this is not set into law yet.

Friday, February 11, 2011

What, exactly, is this question asking? While I'm at it, what is it not asking? The question is very broad and the answers WYKC featured left me feeling disappointed. Adding "really" implies that the answers will be atypical, and to be fair there were a few answers that went a little beyond chocolate, flowers, and stuffed animals, but all in all, there was not much to be moved by. In my opinion, the last woman had the most unique answer out of those presented.

I thought some more. What is this question really asking? It implies that women want something different than men, that there is something inherently different about what we do (should?) want, that the sexes are somehow driven by different needs and wants. It implies that what men want on this day is unimportant, because surely men don't care about romance or, Heaven forbid, emotions and feelings because those are icky and not manly. It is asking what women want because it assumes that women expect something in the first place.

What is it not asking? It is not asking what men want. Does that then mean that men do not (should not?) want something too? Surely men would never care about love and affection, because that means they lose Man Points, and we all know the sky would fall and the Earth would split in half if a male were to lose Man Points.

Maybe some would think my annoyance is frivolous, but I don't care. I am annoyed because I am sick of people assuming every single woman cares about chocolates and flowers and pink hearts on Valentine's Day, and that every single woman expects something in the first place, because women are obsessed with Feelings and Emotions and Romantic Love. Not only that, but that we want Romantic Love from a heterosexual, cis-gendered Man with many Man Points.

I am annoyed because it assumes a man is clueless about what to give a woman to show affection. I am annoyed because it neglects same-sex couples by the nature of its question due to the unsaid "What we mean is, what should a straight cis-man buy a straight cis-woman for Valentine's Day?" Should a male-male couple not worry at all about this? Should a female-female couple worry too? What about the gender queers? Transexuals? Polyamorous? Asexuals? Aromantics? Single people?

I am annoyed because it implies women do all the expecting and wanting, and therefore are not burdened with buying anything for a man because men don't want anything on Valentine's Day because the fate of the entire universe rests on their vast collection of Man Points.

Why do they care what women "really" want on Valentine's Day? Because I assure you, men are not inherently unable to grasp romance, and that failure to grasp is not limited to their sex or gender either. Anyone is capable of this, and it's perfectly acceptable not to care about romance, or to understand it, and it's okay not to want it. It doesn't matter what your sex or gender is. Plus, if you're going to ask what "women really want" then you better provide answers that aren't the usual ones.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Orgasm Inc. has been getting a lot of buzz. It is a documentary that gets to the truth about a lot of myths regarding "female sexual dysfunction" and the drugs and tools that pharmaceutical companies create for problems that may not be real problems at all. Although there are real medical conditions both men and women face in regards to sexuality, these pharmaceutical companies are creating drugs to cure problems that have no actual medical backing.

I suggest that men watch this as well, not just women. Watch the trailer. Check if there are screenings in your area.

It is so incredibly disheartening that sex education fails to give women real knowledge about their bodies and sex. There is nothing wrong about not being able to orgasm from only vaginal penetration. Most women need clitoral stimulation too! This is normal.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Any one of the three bills would be a devastating blow to reproductive health access for women in Ohio. But of the three, it is the “Heartbeat” bill that truly has the potential to change the landscape of anti-choice legislation if it passes. The bill manages to almost completely outlaw abortion in a way we have only seen before in “Personhood” amendments--such as the one that was solidly rejected twice by the voters in Colorado.

By establishing heartbeat as the criteria for banning abortion, the bill effectively rejects abortion from any point after roughly four weeks post conception, a time in which fetal heartbeat can be seen via high quality ultrasound machine. For most women, that would provide a window of two weeks or less in order to learn she was pregnant, make her decision about the pregnancy, arrange for an appointment, gather money for an abortion, obtain the mandatory counseling and sit through the required 24 hour waiting period. For a woman with irregular menstrual cycles, by the time she realizes she is pregnant it likely would already be too late to do anything but continue the pregnancy.

There are two other bills as well; however, the "Heartbeat" bill, as stated above in the quote from AlterNet, is the most severe. If a woman does not discover she is pregnant until after that four week window, her choice is essentially taken away from her as far as the law is concerned.

If the title of this blog didn't give it away already, I am a woman who lives in the Buckeye State. Ohio has always been my home, and while I crave warm weather year-round, I don't know if I could ever leave this state.

My politics are liberal, but I am an Independent. I care about feminism, LGBTQQIA issues, social justice, and equality among many other issues. I'm also a nerd, love to read and write, especially things related to fantasy and the paranormal.

I'll blog mainly about feminist issues and Ohio goings-on, but will post about other things as well, such as global issues, hobbies, etc..